Filed: Dec. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on certain joint pretrial motions 1 filed by Defendants Mark Palmer, Anthony Palmer, Samuel Leinicke, Charles Wolfe, and Robert Wolfe. Defendants are charged with multiple conspiracies to traffic in controlled substances and controlled substance analogues (Count I), to introduce and receive misbranded drugs (Count II), to launder money (Count III), to import controlled substances and controlled substance analogues
Summary: ORDER AUDREY G. FLEISSIG , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on certain joint pretrial motions 1 filed by Defendants Mark Palmer, Anthony Palmer, Samuel Leinicke, Charles Wolfe, and Robert Wolfe. Defendants are charged with multiple conspiracies to traffic in controlled substances and controlled substance analogues (Count I), to introduce and receive misbranded drugs (Count II), to launder money (Count III), to import controlled substances and controlled substance analogues (..
More
ORDER
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on certain joint pretrial motions1filed by Defendants Mark Palmer, Anthony Palmer, Samuel Leinicke, Charles Wolfe, and Robert Wolfe. Defendants are charged with multiple conspiracies to traffic in controlled substances and controlled substance analogues (Count I), to introduce and receive misbranded drugs (Count II), to launder money (Count III), to import controlled substances and controlled substance analogues (Count IV), and to traffic in smuggled goods (Count V). Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Indictment, as unconstitutionally void for vagueness (Doc. No. 181); a joint motion to dismiss Count I of the Indictment, or in the alternative, to strike references to any substances that have been improperly charged as analogues to separately-scheduled cannabimimetic agents (Doc. No. 182); and a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7, essentially asserting that the Indictment fails properly to allege the required "knowledge" on the part of Defendants (Doc. No 185). Defendants also filed a motion for a bill of particulars. (Doc. No. 184.) All pretrial motions were referred to United States Magistrate Judge David D. Noce, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The motions were fully briefed by the parties, and on July 19, 2016, Magistrate Judge Noce issued an Order and Recommendation that the motions to dismiss be denied, and that the motion for bill of particulars be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants filed Joint Objections to the Order and Recommendation (Doc. No. 282), to which the United States filed a response (Doc. No. 289).
When a party objects to a report and recommendation in a criminal case, the court is required to "`make a de novo determination of those portions of the record or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'" United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
I conducted a de novo review of the motions to dismiss. Based on this review, I agree with Judge Noce's recommendation that the motions to dismiss be denied for the reasons stated in the Order and Recommendation. I also note that since the Order and Recommendation was issued, many of the arguments raised by Defendants have been rejected in other cases. See, e.g., United States v. Reulet, Case No. 14-40005-03-DDC, 2016 WL 7386443 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2016); United States v. Sloan, No. 4:14CR152 RWS/NCC, 2016 WL 6989768 (E.D. Mo. September 23, 2016), adopted by Order dated November 29, 2016; United States v. Hawkins, No. 2:13-cr-04049-BCW-2, 2016 WL 1390005 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 7, 2016).2
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order and Recommendation on Motions to Dismiss and for Bill of Particulars issued by Judge Noce [Doc. No. 271] is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, AND INCORPORATED herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Joint Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 181, 182, and 185] are DENIED.
